Re: [Banana] Updated Charter

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Margaret,

There is a value to having a standard, even if multiple proprietary approaches continue to exist, IMO.

Various enterprises use various type of VPN solutions. Some are based on IPsec, some on SSL and some on SSH.. etc. Those are non-interoperable across solutions, but some are interoperable within a solution, when using the same protocol.

To address this issue, IETF did not go create a "VPN working group" and argued that all are proprietary solutions and so we need a single interoperable solution, based on the protocol we choose.  So, what you have been asking for three years is some thing new  We probably should bring this Banana discussion in IETF plenary and ask IETF to change their work scope.

Sri



On Sep 29, 2017, at 6:31 AM, Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Sri,

BANANA is the name of a proposed WG, not a protocol.  The candidates have multiple different names.  What the final protocols, extensions or options would be called is unknown, especially if they result from the merger of multiple proposals, but I doubt any of them would be called "BANANA"...

There is a value to having a standard, even if multiple proprietary approaches continue to exist, IMO.

Margaret


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 29, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Nic,

On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:06 AM, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I see here the risk that every WG comes up with a specific solution (e.g. for QUIC, MPTCP, …). The might use different control mechanisms and
even different policies (e.g. QUIC might prefer WLAN over LTE, MPTCP LTE over WLAN).

There will never be one God protocol which is the protocol for a solution. QUIC/MPTCP/MobIKE/MIP/SSL/GTP are all candidate protocols that will be enhanced and deployed for multipath related solutions. We cannot stop them from extending those protocols.

We are mixing interoperability within a protocol, with interoperability across solutions.
IETF is not in the business of mandating a specific protocol for a solution, or strive for a single solution across internet. A vendor/SDO may use "n" of protocols of his choice for a solution. We only ensure interoperability within a protocol and not interoperability across solutions. Again, IETF has not standardized "the routing protocol", or "the IPv6 transitioning protocol" and there will never be, "The Banana protocol".

Sri